Communion only once a yeat before reformation

  • Thread starter Thread starter flightkid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

flightkid

Guest
I was reading my inlaws Lutheran Pamphlet their chuch gives out on info on communion…it was stating that before the reformation the the Catholic laity were only allowed to receive communion roughly once a year or so…is that true and if so why? It says this was part of a spark to the reformation. I totally agree that reform would be needed if that was the case ( I am even Catholic)…please help
 
I am a Catholic and my inlaws had a question in their Lutheran Pamphlet at Church about Catholic mass…It said that the Mass during the reformation years as a performance by a special, holy man (priest), an action that pleased God, a Mass where usually no one communed except the priest himself, the reformers wanted a Mass that was understood as an event in which Christ gave himself to all of us, a meal everyone wold share…

When I read this as a Catholic I was wondering if it was true that in the 15th century the laity did not recieve communion that much and if so why? Also from my understanding this action pleased God because it was Christs sacrafice made present to the Father is that correct? And only a priest can offer this eucharistic sacrafice correct? And regardless whether he is holy or not its still valid right?
 
Hi Flightkid,

I’m afraid I don’t have time to write you a full response now, but I’ll make a start. If you’re interested in the topic, my university tutor has done a lot of research in this area and written some great books, incuding this.

Before the Reformation, not as big a deal was made about the laity regularly receiving communion, but there were certainly no restrictions (at least, not on a universal level) on them doing so. For example, St. Catherine of Siena was a daily communicant. She notes in her Dialogue that some priests were unhappy with this and at one point she was asked not to approach the altar for a period, but this appears to have been because of her over-flowing emotions and mystical experiences which interrupted the Mass rather than a restriction per se on regular communion.

From the late 12th-13th Centuries, the theology of the Eucharist was highly developed and the sacrament took an increasingly elevated place in the Christian life. All laity were encouraged to engage in regular eucharistic devotion, the reason they did not regularly receive was simply that the emphasis was on the extraordinary holiness of the sacrament, so preparations which would not be practical on a regular basis (certainly for the majority of the peasantry) were considered quasi-obligatory, e.g. confession, fasting, demonstration of an orthodox understanding of Church doctrine.

The requirement was (as it is now) for lay people to receive the Eucharistat least once a year. Most educated people would be expected to receive much more frequently, especially those who had free access to good preaching and teaching, e.g in a university. In many parishes, the priest was so poorly educated himself that he was not really qualified to catechise his congregation and so reception of the Eucharist in a (possibly) unworthy state was, if not actively discouraged, at least not pushed. There was never any rule to stop a lay person who was in a proper state from receiving communion as often as they wanted.

hth a little and is not too convoluted, I’ve been distracted by teenagers running around me so not able to phrase this as well as I might!
 
Ste. Therese de Lisieux was given permission by her spiritual director to receive Holy Communion frequently, which might seem to imply that frequent reception was prohibited, but really the “permission” was only a recognition by her director that she could be trusted to receive worthily, in the same manner that a Catholic is expected to be in a state of grace, and have fasted when he/she chooses to receive Holy Communion even today.
 
How do the Lutherans explain away the words of Jesus : "Take this all of you and eat it, for this is My Body…? The Lutherans have tried to concoct a reasonable explanation for the existence of the Lutheran faith and a break-away from the one true church of Jesus Christ, that is all. They fail to recognize the reality of what really occurred with Martin Luther and the Catholic Church, choosing to invent “logical” reasons for the departure.Most Lutherans today will deny that Martin Luther was a Catholic brother. They have no idea.

This type of heresy is the reason that Catholics must study their faith, and study history- not swallow any old story made up to justify a fallen away Catholic who started his own version, which by the way has been changed and watered down so many times over the past 400 years.
 
flightkid said:
I am a Catholic and my inlaws had a question in their Lutheran Pamphlet at Church about Catholic mass…It said that the Mass during the reformation years as a performance by a special, holy man (priest), an action that pleased God, a Mass where usually no one communed except the priest himself, the reformers wanted a Mass that was understood as an event in which Christ gave himself to all of us, a meal everyone wold share…
  1. When I read this as a Catholic I was wondering if it was true that in the 15th century the laity did not recieve communion that much and if so why?
    2)Also from my understanding this action pleased God because it was Christs sacrafice made present to the Father is that correct?
    3)And only a priest can offer this eucharistic sacrafice correct?
    4)And regardless whether he is holy or not its still valid right?
Click to expand...
  1. It’s true that most people didn’t receive communion that often back in 15th century and before, as we are only obliged to receive once a year, most people only received to fulfill this, but some received every day or once a week, it all depends on the person
  2. Correct+ plus it shows we are one, one in mind, faith, soul and body (of Christ)
  3. a validly ordained Priest (Orthodox or Catholic you can assume the ordination was valid) is the only person who can validly celebrate the Eucharist, licitly is another story, as there are certain societies that do not licitly celebrate the Eucharist (IE the SSPX)
  4. no man alive is “holy” (insofar as meaning sinless), not me, not you, not a Priest, ,Bishop, Cardinal or the Pope. Yet the Lord allows our validly ordained clergy to celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice, Gloria in Excelsis Deo 🙂
 
flightkid said:
I am a Catholic and my inlaws had a question in their Lutheran Pamphlet at Church about Catholic mass…It said that the Mass during the reformation years as a performance by a special, holy man (priest), an action that pleased God, a Mass where usually no one communed except the priest himself, the reformers wanted a Mass that was understood as an event in which Christ gave himself to all of us, a meal everyone wold share…
Click to expand...
RED COMMENTS: If you ever see someone or something call the mass a “performance”, just give up and stop listening or reading at that point. The mass is a sacred rite, and anyone calling it a performance has no intention other than to deliberately belittle the mass. The very use of the word “performance” in the text above should warn you that the questioner knows so very little about the mass at all that their “facts” are likely to be suspect as well…

Orange Comments: Hereing lies a problem: Communion is for those in a state of grace. We are only required to attend communion once a year. Back in the EARLY middle ages, the sacrament of reconciliation was much different from today. Confessions could not be offered nearly as often and penances tended to be longer and more involved. As a result, more people may have CHOSEN to abstain from Communion. However, the church has never held that faithful in a state of grace were to abstain… that would be ludicrous considering that Holy Communion is the central locus of the entire catholic faith…
 
Martin Luther was enthusiastic about people receiving the host frequently in the same breath that he denied that it was the body of Christ.
 
Batfink said:
Hi Flightkid,

I’m afraid I don’t have time to write you a full response now, but I’ll make a start. If you’re interested in the topic, my university tutor has done a lot of research in this area and written some great books, incuding this.

Before the Reformation, not as big a deal was made about the laity regularly receiving communion, but there were certainly no restrictions (at least, not on a universal level) on them doing so. For example, St. Catherine of Siena was a daily communicant. She notes in her Dialogue that some priests were unhappy with this and at one point she was asked not to approach the altar for a period, but this appears to have been because of her over-flowing emotions and mystical experiences which interrupted the Mass rather than a restriction per se on regular communion.

From the late 12th-13th Centuries, the theology of the Eucharist was highly developed and the sacrament took an increasingly elevated place in the Christian life. All laity were encouraged to engage in regular eucharistic devotion, the reason they did not regularly receive was simply that the emphasis was on the extraordinary holiness of the sacrament, so preparations which would not be practical on a regular basis (certainly for the majority of the peasantry) were considered quasi-obligatory, e.g. confession, fasting, demonstration of an orthodox understanding of Church doctrine.

The requirement was (as it is now) for lay people to receive the Eucharistat least once a year. Most educated people would be expected to receive much more frequently, especially those who had free access to good preaching and teaching, e.g in a university. In many parishes, the priest was so poorly educated himself that he was not really qualified to catechise his congregation and so reception of the Eucharist in a (possibly) unworthy state was, if not actively discouraged, at least not pushed. There was never any rule to stop a lay person who was in a proper state from receiving communion as often as they wanted.

hth a little and is not too convoluted, I’ve been distracted by teenagers running around me so not able to phrase this as well as I might!
Click to expand...
According to Dom Gueranger it was a disappointment to the Church that the faithful grew cold to reception of frequent Communion, which was the ancient practice, and that by 506 A.D. declared those that do not receive Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost have ceased being Catholic.

“In the early ages, Communion was frequent, and, in some places, even daily. By degrees, the fervor of the faithful grew cold towards this august Mystery, as we gather from a decree of the Council of Agatha (Agde), held in 506, where it is defined, that those of the laity who shall not approach Communion at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, are to be considered as having ceased to be Catholics. This Decree of the Council of Agatha was accepted as the law of almost the entire Western Church. We find it quoted among the regulations drawn up by Egbert, Archbishop of York, as also in the third Council of Tours. In many places, however, Communion was obligatory for the Sundays of Lent, and for the last three days of Holy Week, independently of that which was to be made on the Easter Festival. It was in the year 1215, in the 4th General Council of Lateran, that the Church, seeing the ever growing indifference of her children, decreed with regret that Christians should be strictly bound to Communion only once in the year, and that that Communion of obligation should be made at Easter. In order to show the faithful that this is the uttermost limit of her condescension to lukewarmness, she declares in the same Council, that he that shall presume to break this law, may be forbidden to enter a church during life, and be deprived of Christian burial after death, as he would be if he had, of his own accord, separated himself from the exterior link of Catholic unity. These regulations of a General Council show how important is the duty of the Easter Communion; …”

liturgialatina.org/lityear/paschal/paschal1.htm
 
flightkid said:
I was reading my inlaws Lutheran Pamphlet their chuch gives out on info on communion…it was stating that before the reformation the the Catholic laity were only allowed to receive communion roughly once a year or so…is that true and if so why? It says this was part of a spark to the reformation. I totally agree that reform would be needed if that was the case ( I am even Catholic)…please help
Click to expand...
If this was the case, it was because of the Jansenist heresy which was condemned by the Church and opposed by many Saints. Not because of any Catholic teaching - and definitely not the custom of the Church. The Reformation didn’t fix this though, rather the Counter Reformation did.
 
Monica4316 said:
If this was the case, it was because of the Jansenist heresy which was condemned by the Church and opposed by many Saints. Not because of any Catholic teaching - and definitely not the custom of the Church. The Reformation didn’t fix this though, rather the Counter Reformation did.
Click to expand...
Jansenism was a 17th century movement; about a century after Luther.
 
This is all pretty interesting…but what I do not understand is if the Church was so worried about the layman and their understanding of the Eucharist which made for infrequent communion…the arguement could be made the same today…I have talked to so many Catholics who did not know “we” as Catholics believe in the real prescence…pretty sad either way, but interesting.
 
Thank you…i was a little offended by the wording of performance as well! I had to stop reading cause my skin was boiling lol
 
I suppose there is no reason not to recieve the body of Christ nowadays, unless you are not a weekly Catholic. (wait… does anyone not go to church at least once a week?) Or if you know you have an unreonciled mortal sin.

The real presence thing is tricky though. Catholics believe in it, and almost all liturgal Christian denominations do (Wikipedia: Lutherean, Methodist, Anglican…). To me it only seems like the modern “reformed” protestants don’t.

How do you deal with accidental drops of the eucharist though? Some stories…
  1. A piece of consecrated bread is dropped. The EM took it, put it on my plate, and ate it afterwards.
  2. A EM told the MC there is a fly in the wine (I am not sure whether it has been consecrated), dead in the liquid (forgot to put the cover apparently…). The MC figured that it is alcohol, so it would kill the germs. He drank it. Nothing bad happened afterwards.
 
"Monica4316:
The Reformation didn’t fix this though, rather the Counter Reformation did.
Click to expand...
I’m not aware of the Counter Reformation changing this practice, although there is much I don’t know about the era so please educate me if I missed it.
flightkid said:
This is all pretty interesting…but what I do not understand is if the Church was so worried about the layman and their understanding of the Eucharist which made for infrequent communion…the arguement could be made the same today…I have talked to so many Catholics who did not know “we” as Catholics believe in the real prescence…pretty sad either way, but interesting.
Click to expand...
I think this is a fair concern, and I think we can trace the change toward the current laxity on this issue back to the man who pushed both for more frequent reception of the Eucharist, and for reception by children: Pope Pius X, the “Pope of the Eucharist.”
 
flightkid said:
Thank you…i was a little offended by the wording of performance as well! I had to stop reading cause my skin was boiling lol
Click to expand...
If in fact that pamphlet used the term “performance”, 2 comments;
  1. I would not consider it either respectful or accurate of what a Catholic priest does at the celebration of Mass. That terminology is crass at best.
  2. I, as a Lutheran, apologize to you that you were subjected to that pamphlet, prepared by the hands of people ostensibly Lutheran.
Jon
 
flightkid said:
When I read this as a Catholic I was wondering if it was true that in the 15th century the laity did not recieve communion that much and if so why?
Click to expand...
True. Why? Because they considered themselves unworthy, and the Church did not teach the importance of receiving communion.
 
Sherry_G said:
Most Lutherans today will deny that Martin Luther was a Catholic brother.
Click to expand...
Really? Can you say more? My wife’s family is Lutheran, and I know many Lutherans, and none of them deny Martin Luther was Catholic. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top